Breaking

Hudson River dredging work in full swing in June 2013 near Fort Miller at Lock 6 in Fort Edward. Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Thursday that he was ready to sue for a ‘full, timely cleanup’ of the PCBs dumped into the river.

Followed notifications

Please log in to use this feature

Hudson River dredging work in full swing in June 2013 near Fort Miller at Lock 6 in Fort Edward. Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Thursday that he was ready to sue for a ‘full, timely cleanup’ of the PCBs dumped into the river.

The most useful class I ever took was one titled, “How to lie with statistics.”

The goal was to teach us what to look out for so that we wouldn’t be taken in.

With that in mind, let’s consider a new poll released by Global Strategy Group. It says that by a margin of 5-1, people in U.S. Congressman John Faso’s district want more dredging of the Hudson River.

Overall, this is interesting: 61 percent of respondents said they want “a more comprehensive cleanup,” while 11 percent said they feel “GE’s clean up has been sufficient.”

By party, the breakdown of supporters for more dredging is: 73 percent of registered Democrats, 56 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents.

We don’t cover Faso’s district much, so I’m not going to get a story out of this, but the topic of dredging was interesting enough that I kept reading.

Here’s what stopped me in my tracks. After respondents answered the first question, they were told this:

State and national authorities and heads of local business groups have all declared that the river is still polluted and GE must conduct more dredging.

It’s too bad they didn’t call me. I would have immediately demanded they tell me exactly which authorities and heads they’re referencing. Because, sure, some state and national authorities have said GE should dredge more. Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently said that.

But I know plenty of “authorities” who say the opposite: that the dredging was a valiant effort but that the technology clearly can’t do more than it’s already done. I know business leaders who say that doing more would not be cost-effective. I know business leaders who have questioned whether this dredging effort, if continued until every last speck of PCB is gone, will bankrupt the company eventually.

And, of course, GE and EPA officials say they’re satisfied with the results. (Not all EPA officials – I recently quoted a former EPA official who wants more dredging, for example.)

I would have been happier if respondents had been given no information, or a short primer on the back-and-forth debate, rather than only a one-sided statement.

In any case, the pollsters did not cite their sources and respondents were immediately persuaded. After the statement, 75 percent said they want more of a cleanup, and only 10 percent said the cleanup was satisfactory.

Thank you, respondents, for once again threatening my belief in democracy.

It is worth noting that Global Strategy Group is routinely hired by Democrats to run polls for them. That’s not to say the polls are biased, but it always worries me. They also only interviewed 402 people, all of whom were described as likely voters in the upcoming midterm election. While I can see how that would be useful for Democrats weighing a run against Faso, I don’t generally think that residents’ views on pollution are only relevant if they intend to vote.

And then they asked this question: If a public official in their area were to call on the EPA to force GE to continue its cleanup of the Hudson, would it make them more or less likely to vote for them in the upcoming election? The result: 58 percent said they’d be more likely to support such a candidate, while just 13 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for that person.

In short: this is a politically-motivated poll that might suggest to Democrats that calling for more dredging will help them in a campaign against Faso.

Watch this discussion.Stop watching this discussion.

(1) comment

Great observations Kathleen - spot on but lets look at some local polling that ends up with direct consequences - votes by local Boards

In the case of the poll you just cited the pollster posed some questionable information to the respondents and reaped a result that reflected the false or incomplete information they had in front of them.

This happens once a month at the County and twice as often at the Town.

There are often 50 resolutions or more that are posted 3 days before the meeting and debated typically less than an hour before a vote at the County. Some are as technical as the dredging issue and often the Supervisors don't have a clue other than perhaps what the engineer or lawyer hired, not on price, but on cooperation, has to say about the issue.

These lawyers and engineers that get hired know where their bread is buttered. They know that NY allows a government organization to choose any lawyer or engineer they want to -- independent of cost. It is a purchasing exclusion for 'professional services'

I watched Dusek play them like an orchestra director - what about it Martin? - what about it Larry? - and the Board was guided into some very bad choices.

It is not as likely to happen today because we have more Supervisors willing to stand-up (if permitted) and call BS when the room begins to smell rank. Following Westcott we now have Beaty and Braymer and occasionally others who are not afraid to express their opinions and a few freshmen that have some potential -- along with a loud mouthed engineer that (when permitted) is not shy to contribute some facts to the discussion.

Braymer's reward this year was to have no chairmanship bestowed and her outright removal from the airport committee where she took a staunch stance on the environmental aspects which had been keeping the runway extension at bay.

Director Conover was responsible for these moves and when asked for his reasons declined to answer, only that it was within his right to appoint anyone he wanted to any position he wanted on the Committees which is where more in depth discussion is likely to happen.

Welcome to the discussion.

Comments will not be posted if any of the following rules are
violated:
- Comments must be contained to the topic of the articles only.
- Comments must be civil in tone and cannot contain personal
insults directed toward another reader.
- Profanities cannot be used, including abbreviations or
acronyms.
- Comments critical of crime or accident victims, or imply guilt
are not allowed.
- Comments that are potentially libelous, including those that
contain accusations not supported by facts are not allowed.
- Comments that appear to be taunting others who comment are not
allowed.
- Comments should be brief and never more than 1,000 characters.